get_sprints

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adequately describes the read behavior (getting sprints) with parameters for filtering, pagination, and issue inclusion. No contradictions or hidden effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence defines the main action, second explains parameters, third gives usage context. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a straightforward list tool with no output schema, the description covers board identification, state filtering, pagination, and issue inclusion. It is complete enough for an agent to use, though it does not detail return structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the board identification alternatives (boardId vs boardName) and the state filter options, plus the optional includeIssues, which enriches understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'sprints from a Jira board', specifies filtering by state and optional inclusion of issues, and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on issues.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context ('see what work is planned or in progress') and explains the two alternative ways to specify the board (boardId or boardName). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but no alternatives among siblings exist.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.